Courts, Boards, & GAO

Trending Now
“Close Enough” Isn’t Good Enough: Protester’s “Homebrew” Certification Sinks Proposal • Lost in Translation: GAO Upholds Rejection of Lease Written in Japanese • Bid Protests in Alaska • Federal Circuit Holds Challengers to CICA Stay Overrides Need Not Satisfy Four-Factor Injunctive Relief Test • The Clock Is Still Ticking — Claims Timeliness Across the Boards and at the COFC

In Search of Lost Time – Contractor Prevails on Claim for Idleness

The contractor argued for additional compensation due to "lost time" caused by insufficient track access. It also sought remuneration for allegedly higher-skilled work that the agency mischaracterized. The ASBCA sided with the contractor on the lost time claim, finding the contractor had incurred costs for idle time after being blocked from the work site. But the board ruled in favor of the agency on the second mischaracterization claim.

Appeal of Bullock Construction Inc., ASBCA No. 62683
  • Background - The contractor, Bullock Construction Inc., entered into a contract with the agency to perform track rehabilitation services. Bullock filed a claim for $1.97 million, alleging it incurred extra costs from waiting for track access. Its other claim was over $3 million for unpaid grout pad renewal work. The agency denied the claims, stating they were barred by contract language. Bullock appealed to the ASBCA.
  • Lost Time Claim - Bullock claimed it consistently reported for work but often had to wait hours for track access, which hindered its ability to perform. The contractor argued that this idleness should be compensated at the regular labor rates. ASBCA found that the agency had breached by not providing timely track access. It ruled that Bullock was entitled to compensation for the time crews spent idle while waiting, amounting to $662,288.75.
  • Grout Pad Claim - Regarding the second claim for Grout Pad renewal work, the contractor contended it performed higher-skilled work but was compensated as if it did lower-skilled work. The agency maintained that it only ordered assistance work and that Bullock did not provide evidence of completing work warranting higher payment. The ASBCA upheld the agency's position, noting that the contractor failed to demonstrate it performed tasks beyond what the agency ordered.

The contractor is represented by Stephen A. Oberg, Esq. and N. Tucker Meneely, Esq. of Council, Baradel, Kosmerl & Nolan, P.A. The government is represented by Jeffrey Weinstein, Esq. of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, along with Attison L. Barnes III, Esq., Tracye Winfrey Howard, Esq., and George E. Petel, Esq. of Wiley Rein LLP.

Get daily insights on bid protests, CDA claims, and contract litigation that shape the GovCon landscape with our Protests & Claims newsletter, delivering up-to-the-minute intelligence Monday–Saturday — Subscribe here.